Essays on What Makes Strategic Decisions Different by Phil Rosenzweig Article

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

The paper "What Makes Strategic Decisions Different by Phil Rosenzweig " is a good example of a business article.   The article by Phil Rosenzweig “ What Makes Strategic Decisions Different” looks critically at decision making with empathizes on the business executives. The article argues that despite the availability of research on decision making, business executives have not been able to apply the lessons learnt. The advancement in the literature on decision making has not been able to bring the expected changes. The article argues that business executives do not fail to implement the lessons due to ignorance or assumption, but due to the inadequacy of the research.

The author argues that the current literature on decision making looks at only one form of decision making (Phil, 2013). The type of decision that the current research has focused on is not what most of the executives faces. According to the article, executives face strategic decisions with consequences. The fact is that decisions that are made in a certain circumstance may not be applied in other. According to the author, people need to be informed of the differences between different decisions.

The manager can only succeed in making strategic decisions when they know the type of decision they face. Decisions are composed of two categories; control and performance. Control refers to the ability to influence the outcome and terms of the decision. Performance looks at the way in which we gauge the outcome success. Combing performance and control lead to the four fields of decision (Phil, 2013). According to the author, the four fields of decisions are making routine choices and judgments; influencing outcomes; placing competitive bids and managing for strategic success.

For the firsts and the second type of decisions, the person has no control but have an absolute performance. These according to the author are decisions based on consumer choices personal decisions. In the fourth field, the person can be able to influence the outcome. This is where the need for outperforming our rivals occurs. The strategic management decision is categorized in the fourth quadrant. These are challenging decisions that the managers are faced with in running organizations. The choices that are made by the executives are only successful if they can outdo their rivals (Phil, 2013). According to the article, improving on how we make decisions in the fourth quadrant can greatly benefit business executives.

Most of the research is said to have been focused on the first type of decision making. According to the article, only those who can think beyond will be able to make a successful decision in the fourth quadrant. From the article, the decision-maker is required to be able to determine the type of decision that they are facing and respond to it with the required approach.

The executives who are making the fourth type of decisions need to have a talent for analysis and take daring actions (Phil, 2013). Strengths and weakness of the author’ s arguments From the article, the author argues that the main reason that research on decision making has not been taken up by executives is due to wrong literature. The current research does not look at the most challenging decision making that the executives’ faces (Phil, 2013). The author has been able to support this claim with sufficient viewpoints.

The author has argued on the claim giving appropriate examples which are able to give insight into the decision making. The argument support is clear since he has used real-life examples which make it more credible. In this case, using examples in the argument makes it more credible. This enables the reader to get the real picture of the basis of claims.

References

Bartol, T., Matthews, S & Scott-Ladd, 2010, Management - A pacific rim focus 6e,

Australia: Mcgraw Hill.

Bazerman, M.H. & Moore, D. 2008, Judgment in Managerial Decision Making, 7th ed.

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc

Idson, L. C., Chugh, D., Bereby-Meyer, Y., Moran, S., Grosskopf, B., & Bazerman, M. 2004,

‘Overcoming focusing failures in competitive environments’, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Vol. 17, no.3, pp.159-172.

Larrick, R. P. 2004, Debiasing. In D. J. Koehler & N. Harvey (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook of

Judgment and Decision Making. Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishers

Miller, S.J., Hickson, D & Wilson, D 1996, ‘Decision making in organizations’. In S.R.

Clegg, C. Hardy, & W.R. Nord (Eds.), Managing Organizations: Current Issues,London: Sage Publications.

Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D & Theoret, A. 1976, ‘The structure of “unstructured” decision

processes’. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.21, pp.246-275

Phil, R 2013, ‘What Makes Strategic Decisions Different: You have to know what kind of decision you’re making in order to make it well’. Harvard Business Review, pp.88-93.

Pugh, D. S. (Ed.). 2007, Organization theory, London, Penguin.

Stanovich, K & West, R 2000, ‘Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the

rationality debate’, Behavioral & Brain Sciences, Vol.23, pp.645-665.

Thompson, L., Gentner, D & Loewenstein, J 2000, ‘Avoiding missed opportunities in

managerial life: Analogical training more powerful than individual case training’. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, Vol. 82, no.1, pp. 60-75.

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Contact Us